1. What are the ethical issues in this case??
The ethical issues in this case revolve around the consumption of genetically modified (GM) foods. We have the supporters of GM food arguing that judging the actual risk should not occur until extensive scientific research has been conducted. Until then, they believe that these crops can effectively aid in feeding the world’s needy by providing higher per acre yields while having a reduced need for pesticides and herbicides. The Anti- “GMers” present another view, as they fear the supporters are expecting too much from GM food. These opponents of GM insist on further long-term studies on the effects on the environment; dangers to wildlife and plants; how it will affect the food chain in regards to control of the gene flow prior to any wide distribution.
2. Do you think either group, pro-GM or anti-GM foods, is correct while the other group is wrong? If so, what reasoning do you give for supporting the position of one group over the other? Is it possible for both to be right? What ethical concepts help you decide?
As I consider the conventional approach in this scenario I find that both sides present very convincing arguments that cannot be ignored. Under a principles approach, I certain think that society as a whole has an obligation to ensure our survival and both sides are fighting specifically for that. As such, both sides are correct and both sides need to concede to the other. The Pro-“GMers” must respect and satisfy the concerns and expectations of the Anti-“GMers” while the Anti-“GMers” must respect and confide in the processes the Pro-“GMers” undertake to resolve the conflicts associated with this uncharted territory.
3. Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be??
As mentioned in the previous question, both sides of this debate must strive to develop a synergy that will...